Wilfried Lipp
50 Years and still going strong …
Historical and Philosophical Considerations on an Anniversary

In the light of a broad range of approaches, monument conservation is faced with the alternative points of view of an „anything-goes“ or „why-not“ philosophy – and, in addition, with the overpowering rivalry of performative concepts. This means, in the sense of the „icon turn“, the supremacy of the appearance. For this reason, the core competence of „historical heritage“, in the sense of the protection of cultural resources, needs to be strengthened. What is required is a re-evaluation of the cultural achievements that cannot be further improved by „change“ and that provide a feeling of safety and security in a world of „disembedding“ and fluctuation. We therefore need a campaign aimed at establishing communication, insight and understanding, the objective of which would be to allow our necessarily oppositional role to make a positive contribution to the system of social values. The cultural heritage must be integrated, in the manner of product placement, within the framework of the leading ideas of economy, humanity, freedom, security and happiness.
In order to be able to have a collective effect, cultural ideas must be charged with fundamental messages. Their essence must be capable of emancipating itself as a „spirit“. The Charter of Venice had this charge, and became the founding mythology of modern universal monument conservation. This can be regarded positively or critically. What is positive is its potential to continue to create its own myth, and cultural ideas need this as „collective cement“ if they are to live on, but seen critically, in the light of the abusive aberrations that have taken place in the name of the spirit of the Charter.

Kerstin Stamm„Il Monumento per L’uomo“. On the Background of the Venice Charter in the Context of the European Post-War Period

The article addresses historical and personal connections in the genesis of the Venice Charter. It comments for the first time on the 1957 First International Congress of Architects and Specialists of Historic Buildings held in Paris, which preceded the Charter. The Second International Congress in Venice in 1964 is then discussed. In this, there is an analysis of the previously de facto ignored source material on the seven-day conference and on the accompanying major monument conservation exhibition. In conclusion, the article considers the links between the Venice Charter and the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property founded by UNESCO resolution in 1956.

Andreas LehneThe DNA of the Venice Charter

The Venice Charter was not written on a blank sheet of paper. The document was based on a long series of older texts, extending in part back into the 19th century (from William Morris’s SPAB Manifesto, via Camillo Boito’s Prima Charta del Restauro to the Athens Charter) and can therefore also be regarded as the „sum“ of the ideas developed up to such time on the „correct“ management of monuments. The intention is therefore first to define the main statements of the Venice Charter (such as the distinction between additions and the original, the „style layers“, the desire for comprehensive documentation etc.) and to trace as far back as possible the development of these expectations and demands. The result is a kind of philological „building age plan“ of the Venice Charter, which reveals the share of innovative original ideas in 1964.

Michael FalserTrans-Cultural Theory-Scapes
On the Career of the Concept of Authenticity in Global Monument Conservation

Within the last half century, no term has had a greater impact within the global monument preservation community than „authenticity“. This article addresses the remarkable development of this catchword over its increasing globalisation from the Venice Charter of 1964 and the General Guidelines on the UNESCO World Heritage (1977–2005) to the definition in various ICOMOS charters and declarations, but which, from the 1994 Nara Document on Authenticity to the present, according to our main finding, has simultaneously undergone a re-nationalisation, regionalisation and thus cultural essentialisation in new country-specific interpretations, above all outside Europe.

Nott CaviezelThe Eroded City. The Vienna Memorandum and its Consequences

The Vienna Memorandum, World Heritage and Contemporary Architecture – Managing the Historic Urban Landscape, drawn up in 2005, must be seen in connection with the inclusion of the historic centre of Vienna in the UNESCO World Heritage list in 2001. On the basis of a tendentious interpretation of the World Heritage inclusion criteria used for Vienna, the Memorandum, in a vague discussion of the already difficult criteria of authenticity and integrity, opened up new room for manoeuvre that in its totality and in the arbitrariness of its interpretation encouraged a multiple impairment of precisely that historical urban landscape that in various ways constituted the quality of the World Heritage. At the same time, the Vienna Memorandum legitimated inadmissible interventions in the historic environment. Nor did the internationally disputed document have any mass appeal, since as early as the year after its publication, the UNESCO headquarters in Paris qualified the Memorandum as merely a sketch that would have to be replaced by new recommendations, as actually happened in 2011. The most serious consequence of the now only locally appreciated Memorandum is that the historic environment of the World Heritage historic centre of Vienna has been eroded across the board, and continues to be eroded with the Memorandum’s blessing.

The article traces the development of international policy papers on urban heritage conservation starting from the 1931 Athens Charter, relating it to monument conservation efforts and urban development. The survey starts from the enthusiastic reception of the French model (Loi Malreaux), followed by early German examples such as the Bremen Schnoor district, to the 1970s trend of implementing pedestrian zones in historic town centres. It sets out the discussions conducted above all in the early 1970s within ICOMOS concerning an extension, expansion and rewording of the Venice Charter, which can only marginally do justice to urban ensembles. The continuing risk to historic old towns is reflected in the most recent international policy papers, the Valletta Principles and the UNESCO recommendation on the historic urban landscape of 2011.

Ernst-Rainer HönesThe Venice Charter in the International Protection of Cultural Property, Monuments and World Heritage

The International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (Venice Charter) adopted in May 1964 is perhaps the most important text for the technical aspects of monument conservation. As a Charter confirmed by the general assembly of the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) in 1965, it is admittedly not a recognised source of international law, but nevertheless it is used as „soft law“ to interpret international requirements in the field of cultural property, monument and world heritage law. It is referred to in most charters, resolutions and declarations subsequently adopted by ICOMOS.
The international intentions, i.e. the international charters in the form of international recommendations as the working results of international conferences, are often of significance for the preparation of binding rules, for filling gaps and for the implementation of treaties. However, they do not replace the international conventions on the protection of cultural property, monuments and world heritage.
Notwithstanding the undisputed success of the World Heritage Convention with respect to a number of selected sites, the field of monument protection and monument conservation continues to be politically side-lined in today’s „environment state“ despite the over 200 international, European and national agreements, charters, resolutions etc.

Wolfgang Karl GöhnerEuropean Standardisation System in the Context of the Venice Charter and International Policy Documents

„The necessity creates the norm“ (slightly adapted from Wassily Kandinsky … „Die Notwendigkeit schafft die Form“)
The Venice Charter of May 1964 is an international agreement without binding legal effect, and often referred to as the monument conservations „Magna Carta“ or „constitution“. This final resolution of a private congress neither became part of an international treaty under international law nor is it a law itself.
However, the Venice Charter continues to be one of the essential intellectual bases for the implementation of monument conservation, without for instance there being an express reference to the Charter in German monument conservation legislation. For a long time, it contained the only globally acknowledged formulation of monument conservation and monument protection principles (e.g. on the appropriateness of material, work and form). In this sense, the Venice Charter is thus itself a standard within the meaning of Art. 1 No. 4 of Directive 98/34/EC of 22 June 1998, OJ L204/37.
The European Union internal market comprises a region without internal borders in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is guaranteed. The function of CEN/TC 346 is to draw up EN standards harmonising and standardising the technical methods used in the field of the preservation of Europe’s cultural heritage. Its effects are for this reason of significance also for museums and monument conservation. Examples include in particular the Heating places of worship guidelines (EN 15759), the Terminology standard (EN 15898) and the Conservation of cultural property (EN 16085). The consequences of standardisation will be of significance for the actual work of museums and monument conservation in Europe in the light of the increasing tendency within the EU to purge the legal standards, in particular regulations and directives, and for specifications not infrequently to „refer“ even dynamically to the work of European standardisation organisations such as the CEN, so that in the medium term the effects of the Venice Charter inter alia will increasingly be forced into the background.
Monument protection and monument conservation must therefore ensure an active presence within the European standardisation process – in order both to determine and to protect!

Christina MayerThe Law only Came Later: Monument Conservation Law in Luxembourg and the Influence of the Charter of Venice

In the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, legislation on monument conservation only emerged at a late stage. A law dating from 1927 set up a Monument Conservation Commission (COSIMO), which is to be revised in an amendment act in 2015. The country has only had a separate Monument Conservation Office since 1977, while the law on monument conservation dates from 1983 and contains a number of provisions inspired by the Charter of Venice. The Charter is also used by monument conservation associations in order to argue against changes to and the demolition of historical buildings. The Charter was also referred to in the Luxembourg press during a number of prominent disputes concerning the preservation of building substance. The Minister of Culture has announced an amendment act for 2015. It is expected that the new law will also be based on the Charter of Venice.

Katharina SteudtnerThe Venice Charter and its Reception in the Restoration of Archaeological Sites

The Venice Charter is a guideline that is applied to ancient architecture (elements), in particular from the Greek and Roman ages. The Temple of Apollo in Didyma in Asia Minor has for a century been an object of archaeological monument conservation – and at the same time an early 20th century reconstruction. Frequently, excavations of ancient architectural elements have been associated with the desire for reconstruction in order to recreate the spatial experience of ancient spaces. Article 15 of the Charter provides instructions for action directed at archaeological sites. A key concept is „anastylosis“, the „restoration of a ruined monument by reassembling fallen parts“. The term acquired its monument conservation aspect around 1900 at the Acropolis in Athens. The approach there had an effect on the development of monument conservation theory (including the 1931 Athens Charter).
With the growth of ruin tourism in the second half of the 20th century, „anastylosis“ projects increased, above all in the Mediterranean countries. Projects in Ephesus and Pergamon are used as the starting point for a discussion as to whether „anastylosis“ is today (still) usable as a method with the aim of substantive and conceptual sustainability.

Bernhard HebertFrom Winckelmann and Riegl to Venice and La Valletta –
Expectations and Implementation in Archaeology

A Rilke sonnet and a text by Winckelmann on torsos serve as access to considerations on the pioneering role of archaeology in the acceptance of the fragmentary. Notions of the autonomous work of art and its fragmentation resulting from the passage of time are just as frequent in the archaeology of the 17th and 18th centuries as the distinction between original substance and additions by Winckelmann. This formed the basis for a number of fundamental principles of the Venice Charter, which of course also takes account of small finds, the „mass products“ of archaeology, for the general appreciation of which Riegl’s considerations on the „art industry“ have acquired crucial significance. Modern archaeology’s shift away from the individual items capable of transportation into museums towards context-based finds has led to the paradox that archaeology, which by necessity must always destroy the conditions that have developed over time, should no longer expose its finds and findings but as it were leave them in a protected reservation. This would, however, lead to the loss of the effect of the (archaeological) fragment on the observer described so pointedly by Rilke and Winckelmann.

Jan Raue
Design and RestorationThe Venice Charter and the Reconstruction of and Additions to the New Museum in Berlin

Since it was adopted in 1964, the Venice Charter has, in the awareness of monument conservationists, been an anchor for their activity. Nevertheless, it is subject to different interpretations and at times is used in contradictory arguments. This is due not least to the fact that there continue to be contradictions in the use of terms, even within the German version, a problem found even more so in the different translations with their different „dialects“. The semantic content of „restoration“ has changed dramatically in the last 100 years, and even since 1964. In most European countries, access to the conservation and restoration professions is only possible via a university degree. What has been the effect of this increased status on such an ambitious monument project as the New Museum in Berlin? The architects found a particularly original approach by adopting conservatory principles and exploiting their added aesthetic value to the full. The extremely positive aspect was that it proved possible to preserve an unusually large amount of the original substance. What needs to be discussed is the fact that many structural elements which had previously been invisible have today become part of the design and implementation. In the individual case of the New Museum, this is a successful and highly regarded innovation, but it is not a model to be copied wholesale for most monument conservation tasks to be solved. The values communicated through conservation and restoration provide more complex stimuli for dealing with monuments that need to be sounded out further.

Eva HodyThe Parish Church of St Hippolytus, Zell am See
Restorations in three Centuries
The breath of the Charter of Venice can be felt in the Romanesque crypt of the parish church in Zell am See. After the parish church, in disregard of the recommendations of the Imperial-Royal Central Commission, was subjected to a comprehensive neo-Gothic restyling in the course of a renovation in the late 19th century, a condition that was respected in the 1950 restoration, the aim of the 1972–75 restoration was to radically return the church to the Romanesque style. The Romanesque crypt that this restoration and returning work discovered and laid open was given a flat continuous concrete ceiling that is clearly different from the historical inventory. At the same time, the high quality of its design allows conclusions to be made about the time of its creation against the background of the Charter of Venice. The thoroughly harmonious appearance of the interior of the church, in contrast, is not so obvious to the present visitor in terms of its genesis. The interior of the church is characterised by structural elements, decoration fragments and spatial forms of obvious historical value. Its overall cool, orderly and restrained appearance, however, is confusing in the light of the great age of this building. The new restoration of the interior of the church (2012–14) aims to respect the restoration of the 1970s, a task that can only succeed if the restoration decisions of the 1970s are correctly understood and interpreted.

20 years ago, following a fire in August 1993, one of the longest and probably oldest 13th century roofed timber pile bridges with paintings from the early 17th century was rebuilt, but with a deliberately incomplete inventory of paintings. The Lucerne Chapel Bridge is an original construction that is being permanently maintained, but of which (large) parts have also been replaced. However, for almost 400 years, it has been the location for the display of 140 triangular wooden panel paintings. The programme of paintings was selected by the state authorities in accordance with the Counter-Reformation, and was financed by the families of the town councillors. It continues today to be a bridge with an external effect within the public space, going far beyond the city itself, a worldwide attraction for tourists. Preservation, maintenance and replacement were difficult not only in the light of the extreme meteorological conditions with fluctuating water levels, floods, wind and the weather but also because it is in daily use as a pedestrian bridge across the Reuss for locals and thousands of tourists alike.
The new bridge timber is gradually darkening, but nevertheless the effects of the fire are reflected in the large gaps in the paintings. The principles of the Venice Charter have determined the reconstruction and the treatment of the bridge to date, the bridge and the surviving original paintings being monitored, documented, conserved and only in the extreme case restored – using reversible materials and techniques.
A campaign was started to replace the missing paintings that had been destroyed by fire with copies of lower quality. The question arises of the extent to which the principles of the Venice Charter can prevail in the light of the public discourse.

Alex Langini„Monumenta“ – On the Programme and Problems of the German
Language Collection of International Policy Papers and Monument Conservation Guidelines in Theory and Practice

German, as is well-known, is not one of the languages used by ICOMOS, although numerous experts from this language region participated in its creation. The charters and fundamental texts created over the course of time were mostly first written in French, later in English. Thus many members have no direct access to them. In addition, years ago the wish was expressed of producing a quasi-official generally binding translation and making it available to the corresponding national committees: Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Luxembourg and parts of Belgium and Italy. The work was difficult over long stretches, but extremely interesting. Specifically, the definitive French and English versions of various documents differ considerably.
The result of a first series of German texts is now available in volume I of „Monumenta“. This series is gradually intended to become a platform for the exchange between the German-speaking committees. Volume II already constitutes a step in this direction.

In Sieversdorf, in the western Odervorland in Brandenburg, a manor house was built in 1690 and modernised around 1800 along the lines of the houses by David Gilly. Just under 100 years later, it was rebuilt and given a side wing. Following the expulsion of most owners of manors and country houses in the Soviet occupation zone after the Second World War, around 2000 of these buildings were demolished for ideological reasons. The intention was to eradicate the roots of National Socialism and with it the war, and at the same time building material was needed for new farmhouses. As a result, the seven-axis manor in Sieversdorf lost three axes before a stop was put to the campaign. The building was open for over 20 years, before being closed and put under monument conservation in 1977. In 1992, the original owners succeeded in reacquiring the building and began restoration in a number of small steps. In 2005, the idea was implemented of reconstructing the three missing axes. The aim was to re-create the appearance from before 1947.
Does the Charter of Venice cover the possibility of simply re-creating the lost appearance? Is the building without the three missing axes not an excellent demonstration of the effects of the repressive policy on architectural culture pursued by Walter Ulbricht? Is this wound not part of the monument? If I am going to build something new and add to the remains, should that not be consistently in a new contemporary architectural language, as recommended by the Charter of Venice?
What do the guidelines of the Association of Monument Conservators in the Federal Republic of Germany from 2011 say about such an architectural exercise? Should, by comparison, the Charter of Venice be restored in linguistic terms?

Eduard Müller The Guiding Principles of Monument Conservation in Switzerland

In 1948, Linus Birchler, the Swiss art historian and president of the Swiss Commission for Monument Conservation, published his famous work „Restaurierungspraxis und Kunsterbe in der Schweiz“, which set the standards for the restoration of buildings far beyond the middle of the 20th century. In 2004, the Commission for Monument Conservation once again decided to record the current state of specialist knowledge in the field of monument conservation in a set of principles which was published in 2007. Unlike in the case of Birchler’s work, the focus was on the historical aspects, the character of a monument as testimony without any restriction.
The starting point is the fundamental human need for memory, which is essentially reliant on places and objects. The principles define the object of the monument, show the possibilities and obligations in dealing with it and then explain the work done on the monument, the concrete measures, the planning and interventions.

Andreas HildBeyond the Shortage – On the Future of Monument Conservation

The Venice Charter was adopted roughly 20 years after the end of the Second World War under the overwhelming impression of a shortage of historical building substance. Even today, this approach characterises our concept of monument conservation. However, a historical reversal is beginning to emerge: Where monument conservation has hitherto, at least in Germany, been able to select from a comparatively small number of surviving buildings those that are particularly worthy of protection, its scope is now extending to the post-war buildings of the 1960s and 1970s. This means that an incomparably larger number of buildings, some with very problematic structures, must be selected.
And even more: If we take CO2 reduction seriously, there will be much less demolition in the future. The number of potential monuments is increasing with the number of surviving buildings. Whether their broad-scale renovation and preservation can be achieved with the conventional means of the Venice Charter is seriously to be doubted. The conflict between genotypic and phenotypic preservation will no longer be so easy to answer here. The paper is intended as a reflection on the resulting theoretical and practical consequences. The issue is that of the preconditions necessary for monument conservation to at least be able to guide the social discussion.

Walter HauserABC-Monument Conservation Standards

„The process of restoration is a highly specialised operation“.1 This guiding principle in Article 9 of the Charter of Venice may, then and today, apply different cultural depths of significance to the term „restoration“, and may also be of a programmatic nature, but the fact is that this standard could never be achieved. The exception has become the rule. Theory and practice have in reality clearly remained a contradiction.
A change in the concept of the monument in the assessment of historical buildings, the encroachment of law into society, and democratic change in the age of citizen participation models has made the gap greater. The current ambivalence requires more comprehensive value criteria and a justifiable discourse if the monument conservation narrative is to retain its due status. Monument conservation today must be represented within its external context, and in conceptual terms is always at least restoration and at time far more. Accordingly, there is a need for broader and above all more detailed assessment criteria for measures-principles, stretched out between the historical-aesthetic narrative, technical perspectives on preservation and use requirements, that permit transparent decisions within the limits of monument conservation and provide a footing in the daily discourse on historic monuments.
Monument conservation in Austria has faced up to this challenge in recent years, and has developed corresponding standards for everyday monument conservation. This article sets out these principles and examines the relationship between ethics on the level of the Charter and the standards of monument conservation.

Eva Battis„Authenticity“ and „Integrity“ in the International (World) Heritage Debate – the Case Study of a World Heritage Site in Bahrain

„Authenticity“ and „integrity“ are anchored in standard international recommendations and heritage conventions that followed the Venice Charter. The two concepts play a particularly imporant role in the context of the Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (UNESCO World Heritage Convention 1972). The article describes the changing application of both concepts in the protection of cultural and natural heritage sites according to the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Given the lack of a comprehensive methodology for the assessement of authenticity and integrity in the context of World Heritage, the article touches upon related research themes and on selected reform suggestions that occur in the international heritage debate. The case study of a World Heritage site in Bahrain illustrates that the innovative application of a broadened definition of authenticity and integrity does not necessarily contradict a conservative approach to built heritage conservation in line with the Venice Charta and can contribute to a more balanced and credible World Heritage List.